Talk:Gillian Duffy (Labour Party)/Archive 1

Redirect to United Kingdom general election, 2010#Campaign?

{{editprotected}} Redirect page to United Kingdom general election, 2010#Campaign. She has been mentioned frequently in the world press over the last few days. The event in which she was involved is documented in a section on the election page and so should be redirected there. --Philip Stevens (talk) 05:21, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree. I'll ask JohnCD to comment here. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 05:55, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I protected this title after this discussion at ANI. Since then, there has been a lot of further discussion and an acrimonious and inconclusive DRV on the main article. On the one hand, there is no doubt the incident has had a lot of coverage, and one of the papers did pay Mrs Duffy enough to overcome her obvious distaste for publicity; on the other, the opinion poll voting intention figures showed no effect, suggesting that it was a media furore rather than having much real-world significance.

My own preference would not to have a redirect from this title, for reasons best summed up as "Granny, did you know you're in Wikipedia! What does bigoted mean?" I can see the case that Mrs Duffy's name has been so widely publicised that there is no longer any point our trying to protect her; but although her name has indeed been "in all the papers", they will soon be in the bin. A Wikipedia redirect permanently associates her name with the fact that the Prime Minister called her bigoted.

My protection runs only till the 13th. We can either remove it, or (as I would prefer) make it permanent. I will post at ANI to ask for more views. JohnCD (talk) 09:37, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I would make it permanent. The incident, whilst reported widely at the time, has been largely forgotten now the election is over; we're not talking Joe the Plumber here. Black Kite (t) (c) 11:37, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Joe the who? Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:15, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree with permanent protection by the way. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:15, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, leave protected. Editors have proven themselves incapable of respecting WP:BLP in regards to this issue, so we'll just be back here again and again and again if it is left open. Tarc (talk) 13:19, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

• There is no need to immortalise this woman's humiliation. It's bad enough that the press hounded her for a week. This reminds me of the hashtag "letdimblebysleep" that cropped up yesterday - people lose their sense of proportion during election campaigns. At least HIGNFY called it "biddygate" not "bigotgate". Guy (Help!) 13:59, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  • "Biddygate" is quite insulting, isn't it Guy? Biddy: "A woman, especially an old woman; especially one regarded as fussy or mean or a gossipy busybody." An odd suggestion from someone who prides themselves on protecting living people. Fences&Windows 15:02, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
• Common sense support. I have no idea why it was not even allowed to be in place when people in their thousands were attempting to use it. But if the issue is supposedly permanence, now that example of fail has passed, then evidence that it has not been forgotten about is available all over the place, whatever parameter you care to use. This went from top news billing to full on cultural reference. It will appear in any sensible review of the election, whether people here want to apply their own original research on the results or not in that regard. Assuming what the redirect means to other people, over and above the common sense view, and worse, imagining up scenarios about evil Wikipedia traumatising her grandchildren, is not an appropriate interpretation of WP:BLP in the slightest. Drop the hysteria, stop the over-reaction, and just implement a common sense navigational aid already. Wikipedia is not the internet, and all other urls do not self-destruct in a week. A Google search of her name will, by people's logic here, label here a bigot for all time, most likely long after Wikipedia has gone down the tubes due to protections like this. MickMacNee (talk) 14:56, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
• Support keeping this protected. The woman's name is the least important thing about this story, and the detail with the greatest potential to harm her, since it's unlikely she'll be involved in anything as prominent again. Even permanent protection can be revisited if circumstances change, but circumstances are unlikely to change. — Gavia immer (talk) 15:14, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

• It was the term overwhelmingly most used to find information about the incident. Ten times more people used it than the other common name, bigotgate, and that itself took an age to be implemented. Her name's importance to the actual story is irrelevant as to whether it is a valid redirect or not. MickMacNee (talk) 15:25, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

If Mrs. Duffy proves to have more legs than it appears at present, then she can have an article, if she sinks into obscurity as it appears, well, she gets a redirect. Too soon to tell now. Joe the Plumber has proved to have more legs than just the campaign (though he is flying low, the engine keeps cutting out, and it seems only a matter of time, still he is now notable), but I could give you many examples of "one event" campaign nonentities, not independently notable per WP:BLP1E, William Hatton in Canadian federal election, 1957 or Vicki Cole in the 1968 US Presidential election (see Bring Us Together). They have a place on this encyclopedia just not in an article name. I would suggest that protection be extended until after a week after the present battle over tenancy at Number 10 expires.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:42, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I can't tell what your point is, are you for or against a redirect right now or not? MickMacNee (talk) 17:29, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I support it. Then reassess later to see if she's worth having an article about. If the media keep covering her in the coming months, there may be reason to write an article on her.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:27, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

A protected redirect would be the best solution. That way users will be unlikely to try to create pages at similar titles about Ms. Duffy (or create pointless DRVs requesting it be undeleted), and users seeking to find information by searching on Ms. Duffy's name will find it. Stifle (talk) 17:50, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: most people seem to be commenting on whether this page should continue to be protected. This is not the issue at hand. The question is whether the page should remain deleted or be created as a redirect to United Kingdom general election, 2010#Campaign. If people could comment on this is would be easier to judge the consensus here. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:39, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
• Redirect. The event itself is worthy of note, if not an article, and the woman's name is associated with the event. I don't see any BLP damage in the redirect, especially since its not linking to so-and-so is a bigot, but so-and-so was called a bigot by the Prime Minister, and that was dumb. I assume the targeted section will go into detail a little about how she was apologized to as well.--Tznkai (talk) 20:48, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't find that argument entirely convincing. The story to which we are linking her name says, the Prime Minister said she was bigoted. Subtext - it was foolish of him to say that while his microphone was switched on, and he had to apologise. But there is still a clear implication that the Prime Minister thought she was bigoted. JohnCD (talk) 21:08, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
    • I can at least believe your earlier traumatised grandchild theory, as plausible, if not worth much weight in the grand scheme of things, but I frankly think this whole 'readers will think she is a bigot' theory, based on nothing but assumption, is condescending rubbish. It honesty reads as if you think our readers are idiots. This idea that a 'subtext' exists here, is entirely your assumption. No redirect should be getting deleted, protected and salted on this flimsy basis. MickMacNee (talk) 21:39, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
      • It's not that the grandchild would be traumatised, the point is that the grandmother would be embarrassed and humiliated, yet again, unnecessarily. And no, our readers are not idiots: from a story "Brown said Duffy was bigoted" they would not deduce "Duffy was bigoted", but what they would deduce is that Brown thought she was bigoted - otherwise why would he say it? JohnCD (talk) 22:27, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
        • I'm not seeing why that is a problem, and certainly not how that justifies deletion, protection and salting, under BLP. That is what he said, that is clearly what he meant to say. Had the article not dissapeared after an hour long Afd, people could read on for the subsequent events and explanations, and make their own judgments. But otherwise, it's accurate, neutral, and noted, in spades. Is the assumption here that everything that Gordon Brown says is true, and endorsed by Wikipedia as uncontrovertible fact? Because if that is what is behind these assumptions, we have bigger problems than I thought, and NPOV is being as misunderstood as BLP. MickMacNee (talk) 22:41, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
• I don't think for the value it will give a redirect it would much use to searchers, in a few weeks no one will remember her name (oh do you remember that woman that Brown called a bigot? What was her name-Its more like a pub quiz question than a useful search term) and they likely won't be searching for the term, so, no redirect delete and salt. Off2riorob (talk) 21:17, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

  Recall from memory is hardly the only way people will learn of her name in future. It was mentioned on national television again only today, several times. This will happen everytime the election is reviewed in print and on television and radio, because despite what people keep pretending, this was a major talking point in the election. MickMacNee (talk) 21:39, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

  I don't think it has the talking strength really, it has become a joke with people joking about it, it wasn't an election changer and people will forget this poor womans name, they will imo just remember the bigoted woman phrase, that actually would be the valuable redirect that people will type in when they don't remember her name. This will become the hung parliament election. Off2riorob (talk) 21:46, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

  Well, its the strength of your own powers of prediction, versus the daily evidence and analysis in sources that continue to say this was a major incident of the election. Quite apart from the fact that there is no way to prove otherwise, it is frankly totally irrelevant to the redirect's usefulness or a proposed article's notabiity, whether the gaffe actually had any effect on the result. That's pretty much like saying Obama had to lose the US election before the Joe the Plumber incident became notable. It's a fallacy. We have WP:EVENT, it really is time people read it, instead of playing the prediction game themselves to say things won't be important in future, or remembered, while ironically, usually being the first to accuse keepers who point to real life evidence and coverage, of CRYSTAL. This incident's notability in terms of election incidents is already well established, and I see no reason why reviews in future will ignore that, and per NTEMP, even if they did, it wouldn't matter. The very least that should happen is to have the redirect restored. MickMacNee (talk) 22:06, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

  Mick, the press have got 24 hours and attempt to control the whole world and fill up their pages with such rubbish but try as they might it is a chip wrapper. I wonder how much coverage there is of that woman who worked for the bully charity and reported brown, I couldn't remember her name and had to google the bully brown thing and then I found her name (can you remember?) even if you can, she is a good similar example, she has a redirect to National Bullying Helpline, she was 24 hour massive full on press for weeks and look at the viewing figures now, no one is even interested, nothing but bots and a passing wiki editor..she is a ghost town as will be Duffy in a couple of weeks if she is not already. Off2riorob (talk) 22:38, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

  Now you mention it, the whole 'he's a bully' thing, is also a noted and often referenced aspect of this election and his premiership. If you want to pretend that sources won't ever mention that incident or her name in future, and thus we don't need a redirect on her name, then that's your perogative. But it's pure, unsupportable, speculation, much like your rationale for Duffy. The unfortunately named Ms Pratt was namechecked by The Telegraph a few weeks ago as it happens, months after the event. And let's not even pretend that Wikipedia deletes articles or redirects with low viewing stats, that's also completely unsupportable, it's a total non-starter as an argument. MickMacNee (talk) 22:51, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

  My comments about Pratt are for comparrison as the situations are very similar, massive press coverage, (they love the easy stuff), she was massive news and very similar, we have a redirect for her and no one is using it at all, and no one will use Duffy either if it is created. Other sides of the position are, just because no one will look for it doesn't mean we should not create it Off2riorob (talk) 23:50, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

  Frankly, the contempt for the media and presence of other POV rationales is palpable in here. It is all totally irrelevant. I really think some people don't get the simple things sometimes, in their love of exercising editorial control. Wikipedia is here to document what other sources consider notable. It is not here to pass judgement on their choices of what to and what not to cover. And NTEMP is quite clear, we do not going around on cleanup operations way down the line, well after the event. Infact, if we were routinely deleting redirects as 'no longer used', that would invalidate the claims others make that we don't write articles on short term interest events. It is one of our staple diets infact. I can at least buy the 'won't be used now or ever argument' for not creating it, that at least has a policy based rationale, but as already said, to invoke it requires ignoring the well established notability of the incident. MickMacNee (talk) 00:09, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

  And actually, all this talk of whether or not it is useful is rather pointless, considering Wikipedia:Redirects are cheap. In that respect, even if it is of use to just one person a month, that's no argument not to have it. No, the only possible rationale here, is the BLP argument. MickMacNee (talk) 00:17, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

  Yes, there are BLP issues and worries from editors, and it is under those issues also and considering my crystal ball comments and general opinions as to the lack of continued notability of the subject that I don't see any value in it. As far as BLP goes I have my reservations, she sold her story to the press and so through that bought into her own one event notability. Did you write the deleted article Mick? I know you like reporting breaking news and you seem very involved in this? Off2riorob (talk) 00:24, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

  I had no hand in the article. It had already been vanished before I, and the thousands of people after me, thought to go looking for it. As it turns out, that out of process and purely reactionary deletion was wholly improper. As with most BLP invocations, corrective action arrives all too late in the day, after the damage to the site is already done. MickMacNee (talk) 01:00, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

  I missed it also. IMO this is all wiki news stuff, she is already history and likely very happy about it, but as I said, she sold her story and as far as the BLP issues go with this redirect, I am not strong about it. Sometimes at wikipedia we seem to waste a lot of time over the tiniest of issues while the big issues sail on by unnoticed. Off2riorob (talk) 01:16, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

  Thats part of our charm.--Tznkai (talk) 05:22, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

• I am puzzled why anybody would oppose a redirect. The name is in the article and all over the media, Ms. Duffy has herself given the media an interview, and the redirect is evidently useful. I see no policy-based reason for not creating it.  Sandstein  13:18, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

  Okay I think there is sufficient support for a redirect and have made it so. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:11, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

  To answer Sandstein: for a policy-based reason, I would cite the passage in WP:BLP#Presumption in favor of privacy about: "...dealing with individuals whose notability stems largely or entirely from being victims of another's actions. Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization." I am still strongly against a having a redirect, and the numbers here seem about balanced; but I was about to ask Martin to close this discussion as an uninvolved admin, so I will not contest his decision. JohnCD (talk) 14:41, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

  I did read the discussion quite carefully and don't think it was all that balanced actually. Apart from a few people discussing protection which was a separate issue, it was only really yourself and Off2riorob arguging against a redirect. However I admit that I did not review the previous discussions on the administator's noticeboard so perhaps there was a slightly different feeling there. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:25, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Recount?

Ah, no, Martin, in that case I think you have misread the earlier part of the discussion, and "I demand a recount." What I said was: "I have deleted and salted this redirect, that protection runs till the 13th, should I continue it?" I don't think the issue has been shall there be protection? - it has been shall there be a redirect? - the point of continued protection being to prevent the creation of one. On that basis, I count the opinions expressed as follows (participants please correct me if I have read your comments wrong):

• We should have a redirect: Philip Stevens, Martin, MickMacNee, Wehwalt, Stifle, Tznkai, Sandstein (7)
• We should not have a redirect: JohnCD, Black Kite, Spartaz, Tarc, Guy, Gavia Immer, Off2riorob (7)
• Commented but didn't give a direct opinion: Fences&Windows

The previous ANI discussion covered other aspects, but on the specific issue of a redirect those who expressed views were:

• Redirect: Stephen (who recreated it)
• No redirect: Iridescent (who started the discussion by asking for it to be deleted), HJMitchell, xeno (plus JohnCD and Tarc already counted above).

Shall we ask someone else to re-assess and close this discussion? JohnCD (talk) 18:00, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

• I dunno what kind of bullshit ppl think they can get away with around here, but reading a "consensus to redirect" from an evenly-split discussion that was actually just about whether the protection should be permanent takes the prize. This is why we should have a real system of admin recall, as Martin has overstepped the bounds of a BLP issue. Tarc (talk) 18:05, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

  Not sure if this post is supposed to be serious, but either way I don't find it very constructive. Please stop trying to cause drama and contribute to the discussion in a collegiate way. If the call for my recall was actually serious, please come to my talk page and we'll take it from there. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:56, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

• BLP requires a consensus to overturn so in an evenly split discussion the status quo should stand. I will not use my own admin tools to wheelwar over this but I do ask the reviewing admin to take down the redirect pending a clearer consensus to restore it. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:09, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
• Some of you admins don't seem to really understand BLP at all. Precedent is pretty clear, if you think this redirect, or anything for that matter, violates BLP, you are permitted by Arbcom and Jimbo to act first, and defend your position later. BLP trumps all policies, procedural and content. So let's be clear, is any one of you even sure BLP is the issue here? Or are we talking about some other thing, such as not liking the way Wikipedia deals with news or current events? If yes, act, if no, take it to VPP. MickMacNee (talk) 19:40, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
• JohnCD: I may have misinterpreted those first few comments. They were not very clear (without the previous discussion as background) and did seem to be a side issue. (The protection of the page was not the issue; and no one has suggested that it should be unprotected.) Therefore I would be happy to re-read the discussion and review my decision. (Although I find this is a very unimportant issue and we should all probably be doing something more worthwhile than discussing this ...) I'll be back shortly. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:52, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

  After reviewing the discussion again, plus the archived ANI thread, I agree there is not the required consensus for this redirect to exist. While I suspect this may not be the optimal answer in the long term, I think enough time has spent on this issue for now. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:48, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Martin.

I would like to add one further point: it has been said that a redirect will do no harm because no-one will think worse of Mrs Duffy on finding her name linked to this. I have already argued that although Brown had to apologise for saying that she was bigoted, he clearly thought she was. The point I want to add is that plenty of other people think the same: see for instance this article inThe Guardian, expressing "Anger at Gillian Duffy, anger at all the people who weren't willing to stand up to her." Many of the readers' comments agreed: "Totally agree. Gordon Brown was right about her" "She should be the one apologising" "this odious woman" etc. That article will fade off the Google hits quite soon, but a Wikipedia redirect would not. For the rest of her life it would link her to a story about an off-the-cuff remark she made which made the Prime Minister think she was bigoted, and would make some other people, like the Guardian columnist and many of her readers, think the same. We really are better without it. JohnCD (talk) 13:09, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

That is some of the most tenuous and patronising reasoning I have ever seen. The redirect points to a neutral account of events. It is unbelievable you want to ingore that fact, and in order to further the fantasy of making Wikipedia pretend the incident never happened, which is the inevitable conclusion any normal reader comes to when they find nothing behind this valid search term, you want to presume to know what right minded readers might think if they are allowed to find out what the Prime Minister said using this redirect. This is frankly condescension in the extreme. It makes me angry to think that this blatantly insulting assumption is what stands for content policy in here. BLP is about protecting people from what Wikipedia writes. By moving outside of that sphere, and presuming to fix the wrongs in perception of people and media in the rest of the world, you are over-stepping your authority by a mile, with great giant leaps. Infact, you are doing her a disservice, the very essence of NPOV is that WIkipedia is supposed to be the reliable source of the neutral facts, where people can come and figure out for themselves the facts, instead of relying on columnists or, bizarrely, comment sections. Wikipedia is not the place where you get to presume to know what readers might think, who gave you that right? This redirect is valid. Gordon Brown has just resigned, and here is the BBC's rundown of "The political career of Gordon Brown", which gives two paragraphs to discussing the incident, and mentioning her by name. And her name is going to be mentioned in every subqequent review aswell. Some people want to dismiss this as media furore. That's BS. The lie that this was a trivial event was just that, and Wikipedia is being laughed at, daily, for misinterpreting BLP so badly it can come up with logic like you are offering up here. MickMacNee (talk) 22:56, 10 May 2010 (UTC)